In case anyone’s unclear about how someone gets to the point that they’re blasting their gun into an empty street because an acorn fell on their car, you should learn about How Cops Are Trained to Shoot You in Your Home.
TL;DW: watch it, this is important. But also they are basically traumatised into being jumpy trigger happy motherfuckers by their sociopathic training.
And my question is, why should I give respect to someone who is violating rights of individuals domesticly as a police officer, and has likley committed war crimes and rights violations abrod, or atleast aided and abeded said war crimes. I only see this as more meme worthy. I understand PTSD is no joke, but at some point, the position of power and betrayal of your class removes the sympathy I would otherwise have for you
I didn’t ask for sympathy for anyone on this. It’s more towards the process is absolutely fucking broken. It was obvious that something like that can happen to any person with more than 2 brain cells. And yet, the decisions we were made to put a person in a situation where he was bound to fail.
Do you have any evidence of the “war veteran” part of this, or literally anything to indicate that he has PTSD besides your own assertion that he “probably” has it? The only thing I can find is that he was in Afghanistan but never saw any combat. Are there things in Afghanistan that could cause PTSD? Sure. Is there any evidence that he has PTSD? Not that I’ve seen.
You know who probably does have massive PTSD? The cuffed guy in the back that was almost executed by two cops because one of them was so effing stupid that he thought he’d been shot by an acorn. He did not “react accordingly.” He reacted like a trigger-happy moron. The only useful part of this is that he’s resigned.
The talibans Asymetrical warfare and the resulting Paranoya itself can give PTSD
If you spend years always expecting an ambush, always being told to expect an ambush, you will see an ambush everywhere. Even if you never were actually ambushed.
Not that i’m defending him, but asymetrical warfare can and will fuck you up.
The Taliban’s methods of warfare, in and of themselves, don’t even meet criterion A for a PTSD diagnosis. The man wouldn’t necessarily have to be in combat to meet that, but it’s a lot more likely if he did (which, by all evidence I’ve seen, he didn’t).
Apparently whatever you’re using doesn’t have letters in it, so I assume it also doesn’t have words, since those tend to be made of letters. I’m fine with this. You can do whatever the voices and crystals are telling you.
The American’s asymmetrical warfare and the resulting paranoia itself can give you PTSD.
If you spend years always expecting a drone bombing your wedding, always being told to expect a drone bombing your wedding, you will see a drone bombing your wedding everywhere.
Even if your wedding never were actually drone bombed.
Not that i’m defending him but asymmetrical warfare can and will fuck you up.
PTSD is not their fault, but it is their responsibility to deal with and they should not be employed in a position where that condition could engager the general public. Like it did. If I’m allergic to peanuts, I shouldn’t be hired in a place that processes them. And even in that example, I’m only putting myself at risk.
Speculation, but having seen similarly hypervigilent and jumpy people get hired locally, they were hired for office duty, promote to field work and that’s where they fucked up. But it’s just three dudes I’ve seen that happen to, I wouldn’t draw industry wide conclusions from that.
Apparently, Taylor Swift has no major blemishes on her record, except that she has lended out her private jet to family members and other close relations for significant and seemingly trivial trips.
So people are focusing on that.
She could do something unconscionable soon, statistically, but nothing has happened yet.
Didn’t she just sick her legal team on the random kid who was tracking her public flight record habits? I was under the impression it stemmed from that (highlighting her frivolous plane usage).
Yeah, and this sucks to say, but this is a case of different circles. When you’re that rich, you tell people hey, why is this guy…, and then your legal team sends a cease and desist letter.
It isn’t suing him, it’s telling(telling) him to stop it please, legally.
She’s so rich that it’s very scary, but it’s basically like a neighbor knocking on your door, with the very important caveat that if her steel toed stuffed animal boot decides to kick your door in, you have no legal recourse, since you can’t mount a proportionally paid legal defense.
In more free countries that are more supportive of every citizen, this wouldn’t be a big deal. In the United States, since money has been legally transmogrified to free speech, it’s more of an issue.
Appreciate it. Most of my literary and scholarly documentation can be found completely disassociated from and highly derivative of Watterson and similar works.
Caveat: if you ain’t rich, then you ain’t people. (literary callback to a phrase that Biden said during his last campaign)
Oh, and “speech” = $$$ btw (Citizens United).
Translation: facts be damned, rich people gonna do whatever they want, and the laws will even codify that, despite how that means the literal and precise opposite of what America was first founded upon.
It’s also a grey area because she’s such a big public figure that, while the kid is completely within their rights to do this, it presents a pretty big security/privacy concern for Taylor Swift and her family.
I saw somebody mention recently about this whole thing that celebrities like her use transportation like private jets specifically because of security concerns compared to driving and other, more public forms of transportation. The general public and the scummy paparazzi aren’t all that different sometimes, and the general public is more likely to have some nutjob with an agenda about the Super Bowl or something.
I agree, and I’m not saying otherwise. What I’m saying is that I understand where the C&D letter is coming from because broadcasting said publicly available data poses a security risk. It’s like when famous people are holding a panel at a convention or something. I remember Markiplier and his friends talking about how when they’d go to a convention, security wouldn’t let them walk around the floor because it posed a security risk to them, and to other people due to the crowds they’d draw. It’s not about some billionaire’s hurt feelings; it’s about the crowds of people that might swarm an area if they think they’ll see Taylor Swift there or the dude with a brain smaller than the hemis in his lifted pickup who might see it on Twitter and decide that he’s had enough of her woke football agenda.
I’m not supporting the cease and desist, but I get that the kid was adding additional risks that her security detail does not want to deal with. Not that the kid was doing it with malicious intent anyways, because you can get in actual trouble for that rather than just being sent the legal equivalent of “please stop doing that.”
I’m sure everybody remembers the story that the Republicans used to rant about of the cake shop that got in trouble for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. But what they conviently leave out is that the shop actually got in trouble for what they did afterward: giving the couple’s info to a Christian hate group who threatened them so badly that they had to leave the state for their own safety. All because they were getting married so that they could adopt the kids of a friend who had died to keep them from going into foster care. The couple’s info was publicly available, but the shop got in trouble because they gave it out with the intent of causing them harm. That’s the kind of thing the security detail is thinking about when they do stuff like this.
It’s the kind of thing that makes me think that when either side of a legal case spends money on lawyers, they should have to donate an equal amount to the other side.
But that would the require people with power to care about justice.
Listen, I hate the tipping culture here just as much as everybody else, but the fact is, if you can’t afford to tip, you can’t afford to go out. Should employees get a decent wage without it, absolutely yes. But they don’t right now, and you not tipping isn’t going to change that.
I agree with you, actually. If you don’t want to tip, fine, don’t tip. But don’t go to a restaurant and then not tip, either, because not only are you still giving the company money, you’re shortchanging the actual person you want to help.
We are not short changing anyone. A tip isn’t a guaranteed income from working.
Also, it’s halrious that you agreed with the previous person, then instantly renegged and said the opposite and went back to he same garbage you said before.
Tipping culture is wrong. Never tip, stop begging.
I’m not contradicting myself. All of my points can coexist.
If you don’t want to tip, fine, stop tipping.
If you go out to eat, tip your staff.
If you want the tipping culture to change, stop going out.
You’re correct, a tip is not guaranteed income, that’s the entire problem. I don’t understand why what I’m saying is so hard to understand. The company will only make up for lost tips for a waiter for so long before they’re fired. Continuing to go out to eat and then not tipping changes nothing, it just makes the waitstaff’s lives harder.
If everyone today stopped tipping, do you think companies would suddenly begin to pay more? I’d wager that wage increases start with the waiting staff, and ends there. Why are you pushing the responsibility onto the customer?
I’m not pushing the responsibility anywhere. If anything, I think it’s the government’s responsibility to take the tipping loophole out of minimum wage laws.
The hostility is entirely unnecessary. If you eat out and don't tip, the only person you're hurting is the person you claim to want to help. If you can't tip, eat at home. If you can, then do so while still fighting for better workers rights. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
Thanks for the clarification. I sometimes get tunnel vision and forget people live in places with different laws and regulations. Yes, I’m specifically talking about US states where it’s legal to pay a waiter $2.13 an hour because tips make up the rest of federal minimum wage.
you are proposing that if we all stop tipping, companies will be motivated to pay their workers; you are correct, this is what would happen if we all stopped tipping at the same time.
this process is known as collective action. it is incredibly important to remember that collective action only works when it actually happens. in other words, your individual action of not tipping your waiter is ONLY beneficial to your waiter if you can make sure one else tips either.
do you have this power? (i think you don’t; if you do i beg of you to exercise it lol.)
now consider who actually holds the power here. at any point, your restaurant’s owner could institute a no-tip policy, thereby ensuring that no one has to tip, ever. several restaurants already have done this, and it works. now, you might (correctly) note that this may gives an unfair advantage to other competing restaurants who do not implement no-tip policy. this is where local and regional policy can come in to help coordinate transitioning to a more helpful model of compensating employees.
so there’s kind of this imbalance, where yeah technically it’s possible for us as eaters of food to “fix” the tipping problem, but its way way easier for the people in charge (whether that’s government or owners) to fix it, because they have the power of coordination on their side.
tldr, tip your waiters and advocate for anti-tipping policies if you want to maximize long term benefits for everyone.
No, not benefits for everyone. Servers will never get a wage that’s equivalent to the tips they get now. Never.
Go survey servers on the subject and see what they think.
I’m not necessarily against no tipping areas, but I’m not going to act like it benefits the workers. It’s more of a crab bucket mentality where we bring the better paying low-skill job in line with all the rest.
Employees who won’t be able to make a living will go elsewhere. it’s not easy and instant, but eventually if a restaraunt can’t staff itself, it will collapse.
We should absolutely not be subsidizing restaraunt owners who are only keeping a float by paying low wages. if they can’t afford to properly pay their staff, they don’t deserve to operate.
My man, I have no idea why you got down voted. You’re 100% correct. Can’t afford to tip, can’t afford to eat out. Eating out is a luxury, not a necessity. Grocery stores have frozen food if you don’t want to cook.
OP is right, and the users on Lemmy are salty. Waiters make $2.13 / hour they survive off tips. If you don’t tip, the system doesn’t change, you’re just an asshole
FWIW this is completely location dependent. Where I am at in the USA waiters are paid $15 / hr plus whatever tips they recieve and I tip unless the service was completely abysmal.
If nobody tips for their entire shift they will make $7.25-$15 an hour, not $2.13. That $5.12-$12.87 is just pocketed by the restaurant if they get tipped.
No, but it makes tipping a necessity if you go out. My stance on this is that if you want to enact change, stop eating out. Continuing to eat out but then not tipping doesn’t do anything except shortchange the wait staff. The company still gets your money.
When you say that common indulgences are “luxuries” are not required, you’re promoting austerity. You’re asking people to forgo life’s pleasures for no real gain. That NEVER works. People won’t just stay at home eating simple food unless they will go broke otherwise. With a world of billionaires we can’t ask for austerity; it’s morally bankrupt.
I mean, that feels like common sense to me. I have less money than I had last year, so my girlfriend and I eat out less, I buy less video games, I buy more chicken and less beef, I buy less alcohol, etc. etc. It’s just a reality of inflation.
We avoided the recession, the result is inflation is destroying our wallets, so we have to spend less to still pay our bills.
That’s more of a function of corporate greed than anything else. They’re all hiding behind each other while ripping you off, and getting away with it because it’s difficult to call out any one company when they’re all doing it.
What are you going to do about it, compete in the marketplace? The barriers to entry are high enough that that is extraordinarily difficult. And if you do manage it, why would you charge less than market rate? And you’re likely to just get bought out by a bigger competitor anyway, so grats on your cash out.
I mean, sure, we can say it’s corporate greed, but also we’ve put over a trillion dollars extra into the economy in a short span due to COVID and Build Back Better, while at the same time there were supply shortages for years, plus record low unemployment causing a raising of wages, all without the fed reacting quick enough by increasing interest rates sooner. We’ve got every textbook condition for an increase in inflation rates.
I got chased down the street on my first day by someone I tipped. I didn’t know it was actually taboo. Apparently tipping is an insult. The staff chased me down on the street to return it to me.
The issue here isn’t tipping in general… It’s the audacity to try and increase percentages while prices are also going up for everything, including that same meal compared to a couple years ago.
Tipping in general is bullshit and we need to fix the root cause of employers not being required or willing to pay fair wages, across the entire economy, not just service industries.
I hear a lot of this rhetoric but it sounds like you’re just saying this is how it is and I’m going to accept it which I think is a cowards approach. If you want to make change then you have to do something about it by going to restaurants and not tipping you are sending a message. Does it hurt the server? Maybe, but in the end it’s not my responsibility to pay them and if more people stop tipping then maybe things will change. With that being said, I don’t go out to any places that expect me to tip because I know there are people like you that think I’m evil because I don’t want to give my hard-earned money away to someone else for doing their job.
Maybe I should’ve worded my original comment better, because I never said we should just accept it. I explicitly think we shouldn’t accept it by refusing to do business at places that push tipping instead of paying their staff proper wages.
I was thinking the same. People are probably mixing up the being alive during the construction of the pyramids with coexisting with them. Even us today coexist with the pyramids and could be accurately pictured around them.
I dont know how people do it, every sugar alternatives I’ve tried taste like ass: sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, all of them are fucking disgusting.
I’d say sucralose is the most pernicious, I’ve bought things not labeled as no sugar(Asian countries LOVE using it in random shit) and as soon as that aftertaste hits I gag.
It’s best to just change your palette so it doesn’t need sugary tastes anyway. If you don’t want sugar substitutes, just change your diet so your body doesn’t expect sweet things at all. That’s a great move.
Everyone looks at me strangely when I ask for 0% sugar in my bubble tea. The pearls already have sugar in them, and when your palette changes, you can taste the tea and milk so much clearer rather than having all of that covered up by the taste of sugar.
Tbh attempting to replace sugar with “sugar alternatives” is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that commercial goods are sold with a fuckton of super sugar (high fructose corn syrup et al.) added to them which is completely unnecessary. If you just try to get your sugar from natural sources and try to eat some fiber with it (whole fruit is perfect for this) you’re on the right track.
The short version is simply: don’t drink your sweets
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.